The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio (And How To End It)

[Wallyg]

Originally posted by FORD
[B
It has nothing to do with ratings. It has nothing to do with advertising dollars. It has nothing to do with the politics of the local radio market.

[/B]

?????????????????????????????
That quote has nothing to do with reality.
It is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[TongueNGroove]

Originally posted by FORD
How the FUCK does 3 companies controlling 85% of the radio stations in this country equal "free enterprise".

Again, Assvibe...... How the Hell do you explain SAN FRANCISCO having a 69% right wing - 31% progressive split?

Is there REALLY a huge Republican audience in the "most liberal city in America".

It has nothing to do with ratings. It has nothing to do with advertising dollars. It has nothing to do with the politics of the local radio market.

It has everything to do with RIGHT WING FASCISTS attempting to censor what radio content is available.

If ratings have no affect on what hosts radio stations put on the air then why the hell was ROTH booted out? Agreed that wasn't a politically based show, but it is a perfect example of how important ratings are to attract advertisers who pay all the bills.

Also why was Savage booted off MSNBC? Because the advertisers pulled their funding over his comments...same goes with IMUS!

If you really believe that ratings have nothing to do with what is on the radio or TV then you are even more delusional than I thought.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Sen. Feinstein raises fairness doctrine to silence talk radio
Sunday June 24 2007 @ 6:14 pm by Optimistic Patriot

An interesting exchange here between Chris Wallace and Senator Diane Feinstein. It seems that Diane isn’t real pleased about talk radio’s take on the amnesty bill:

But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.

This bill was negotiated in secret and ¾ of the US Senate didn’t know what was in it. Then they tried to pass it in less than a week. And Feinstein can say with a straight face that talk radio didn’t have a lot of information? Comical.

This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

“Complicated” is code for “not easily understood by the little people”. What about free speech, Diane? If some people want to call it amnesty, isn’t that their right? It’s way to dangerous to let people have their opinion though.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

It might be time to switch to satellite and Internet radio. I get enough liberal pabulum from the NY Times, CNN, Washington Post, et al.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it’s the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don’t seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

I love how she completely skips the free market question by stating “there have been problems”. Yeah, like nobody wants to listen to liberals on the radio. And we know how liberals fix “problems”—more government regulation. Apply a fairness doctrine if you like, but include the NY Times, CBS News, and the nightly news casts while you are at it.


Archived in Democrats | Trackback | del.icio.us | Top Of Page

[FORD]

First of all, Diane Feinstein is less of a Democrat than Hillary Clinton. She's practically Joe Lieberman in drag. So leave her war profiteering ass out of this.....

Clear Channel is downright schizophrenic about this whole thing....... They KNOW Liberal talk radio is a successful and profitable format, because they own stations like KPOJ in Portland and "The Quake" in San Francisco. Yet they still try to flood the market with right wing formats.

But that's because Clear Channel is very much an organ of the BCE political machine. It was literally founded with money made from BCE business dealings (the whole Texas Rangers swindle) and now Mitt the Dog Abuser has bought into the company, so you know you'll hear a lot of his ads on the radio. Probably even on the Quake and KPOJ.

[Sgt Schultz]

House Votes 309-115 Against Fairness Doctrine
The House votes 309-115 for a Mike Pence amendment barring the FCC from imposing it.



"On television, The O'Reilly Factor, has the most knowledgeable audience, 27% of the audience are college grads, which matches the national average. Only three audiences in the Pew survey scored higher on high knowledge than O'Reilly at his Factor TV show. Regular readers of The New Yorker and the Atlantic, regular Rush Limbaugh listeners, and regular Weekly Standard and New Republic readers. "

[DEMON CUNT]

"high knowledge" WTF?



"The O'Reilly Factor has the most knowledgeable audience"?!?

Ha ha, that's rich.

[Sgt Schultz]

Frogot the link
link

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by FORD
(the whole Texas Rangers swindle)

um...texas rangers swindle?

(i'm assuming you're not referring to them snagging free agent a-rod from the mariners?...)

[FORD]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
um...texas rangers swindle?

(i'm assuming you're not referring to them snagging free agent a-rod from the mariners?...)

No, they swindled themselves that time. They paid more for Pay-Rod than Chimpy paid for the entire team.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
The real reason left wing hosts can't keep an audience is because the majority of the left have attention deficit disorder.

No limp-wristed, frosty haired, streisand loving, Broadway singing liberal is gonna last 5 minutes listening to someone talk about their politics.

They'd rather be listening to Aaron Neville and talking on the phone while driving their Peugeot 604 to work at the local tanning salon.

What the fuck was that?

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Wallyg
?????????????????????????????
That quote has nothing to do with reality.
It is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

And I agree.

Just listen to who runs ads on these shows.

The majority who would never run time on a progressive, "common man's" theme.

Country clubs, golf courses, CPA ads- all the things out of the working man's reach.

THE REAL working man can't hear Rush.. he's too busy WORKING...not pulling a nooner to make a tee time.

[Nickdfresh]

An interesting take...

Let the blowhards blow
Jul 19th 2007
From The Economist
Kevin Kallaugher


The case for keeping the airwaves unfair and unbalanced

RUSH LIMBAUGH makes an unusual martyr. He's a rich, white and often rather nasty celebrity. He has the look of a man who eats steak for breakfast. He likes to smoke huge cigars. But a martyr is exactly what he will become if some of America's most prominent politicians get their way.

Richard Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, claims that it is time to “reinstitute the fairness doctrine”, referring to a federal rule, in place in 1949-87, that guaranteed “ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views” on the airwaves. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004, says that the fairness doctrine ought to come back. “When conservatives got rid of the equal-time requirement...they've been able to squeeze down and squeeze out” opposing views, he says. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, says that she is looking at reinstatement. Even Trent Lott, a leading Republican, is hinting at jumping on the bandwagon. “Talk radio is running America,” he complained when the immigration bill went down in flames. “We have to deal with that problem.”

This bandwagon needs to be stopped before it can build up any more speed. America's talk-radio hosts are a rough bunch. Mr Limbaugh is clearly a great broadcasting talent. He is also a caveman. Most of his allies and imitators are cavemen without the talent: try listening to Sean Hannity of an afternoon. And the talk-radio hosts were certainly at their xenophobic worst during the immigration debate. But none of that is a reason for formatting them out of existence. The “fairness doctrine” is a hangover from a prehistoric technological era. It is an assault on free speech. And it embodies a trivial view of what makes for informative reporting. Serious politicians such as Mr Durbin and Ms Feinstein should be ashamed of themselves for digging it up.

The fairness doctrine was introduced in a world when the airwaves were a scarce public commodity dominated by three networks. The doctrine always involved unattractive trade-offs. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) got into the unfortunate business of regulating political speech and constructing elaborate measures of “fairness”. Broadcasters were forced to accept limits on free speech that print journalists would have gagged on. Pressure groups and litigation fiends had a field day accusing radio stations of bias. Many radio stations avoided controversial subjects altogether in order to spare themselves a visit from FCC snoops.

But these days there is no shortage of radio spectrum. America is buzzing with more than 14,000 radio stations. There is nothing to stop American liberals—or indeed communists, Trotskyites or Spartacists—from establishing their own stations. The reason why the leftist flagship Air America Radio almost ran aground last year was not because of lack of spectrum but because of lack of talent and good management.

And radio spectrum is only the beginning of it. The years since the Reagan administration pronounced that the fairness doctrine was outdated have seen a media revolution. Not just the arrival of satellite radio and cable television—the average American TV viewer has access to 102 channels—but also the birth of blogs, podcasts, YouTube and God knows what else. Doesn't this new media world guarantee “ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views”? And doesn't it make the idea of regulating the airwaves in the name of a government-mandated idea of fairness seem a bit quixotic?

The new apostles of “fairness” advance two arguments in favour of going back to the past. The first is that the ownership structure of radio stations is unfair. A handful of mighty companies such as the Sinclair Broadcast Group use their market dominance to push a right-wing agenda. A report by the Centre for American Progress, a liberal think-tank, points out that the top five commercial station-owners overwhelmingly favour conservative talkers over their liberal rivals: 91% of the talk that they broadcast is conservative, compared with just 9% that is liberal.

The NPR effect

The problem with this argument is that talk radio represents only about 3-4% of the radio market. Mr Limbaugh, the biggest right-wing talker, draws 13.5m listeners a week. National Public Radio, which strives to be fair and balanced but leans to the left, draws 20m. The shock jocks who rule many urban markets are also vaguely leftish: Don Imus, who was dumped for his comment about “nappy-headed hos” but who is reportedly planning a comeback, was almost as scathing about George Bush as he was about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. The reason why the likes of Sinclair Broadcast Group have done so well out of talk radio is that they found a market niche of people who feel that their views are marginalised by mainstream radio. One reason why Air America found it hard to find talent and listeners is that most liberals are perfectly happy with NPR.

The second argument is that people ought to be exposed to both sides of the debate. “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision,” says Mr Durbin. This is all very high-minded. But should the state really be in the business of regulating what political views people are exposed to? Nobody thinks that readers of the Nation should be forced to read the National Review as well.

Whatever its problems, America does not suffer from a shortage of opinion or debate. The magazine racks of bookstores groan with political magazines. The radio waves buzz with comment from the left-wing Pacifica Radio to the far-right nutcases. Every man and his dog has a blog. The idea that the government should be hauled in to regulate a fraction of this exploding universe is absurd. No wonder Congress has an even lower approval rating than Mr Bush.


Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[FORD]

Re: An interesting take...

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The reason why the leftist flagship Air America Radio almost ran aground last year was not because of lack of spectrum but because of lack of talent and good management.

He's almost right...... That's NOT how Air America started, but it definitely IS how it ended up, as the bad management systematically removed most of the real talent from the network.

[WhoCares?]

"MAO!

Frod screaming for "fairness"! LOL!

Cradle to grave, eh? You really NEED government to solve every one of your problems!

Air America failed because nobody wanted to listen to it. Advertisers couldn't make a profit, and the message was the same every day. Nobody needs that. Because they ripped off the Boy Scouts now you want them to go to bed with the government? So much for Free Enterprise. If people gave a flying fuck about their message they would've dialed in no matter how shitty the signal. They didn't."



Bingo

Radio is a business, a market

If you have something to offer that the people want, you stay in business. If not, bye bye

All these "fair minded progressives" on this board can't quite comprehend that

Their side get's shot down each & every time, so they run crying to their nannies, the government & leftist federal judges, & try to force the taxpayers to pay for their crock of shit that no one wants to listen to

They simply hate capitalism, the concept of open markets & competition because they lose everytime

Maybe 5% of the population is interested in the BS they spew. So, they demand the government step in & make it "right". Force their BS, which no one will listen to, onto the airwaves

Go ahead guys, do it. Do you actually think this "doctrine" is a magic wand & soon millions will be interested in leftist tripe?

Hell, even George Soros, the insane radical anti-American billionaire, is growing weary of pouring money into a losing endeavor like Air America

When are you lefties going to realize we live in a Republic based on a capitalistic system?

You can't force your ridiculous ideological bullshit down the throats of the people

They "ain't" buying

[FORD]

Originally posted by WhoCares?

You can't force your ridiculous ideological bullshit down the throats of the people

They "ain't" buying

28% of this country still buys the most ridiculous ideological bullshit ever conceived by a band of neo-nazis.